Search Tips
 
Hot Stuff

 

 Holcomb Energy Bills are not “Green”. . . .
They merely give the green light to burn more coal

(For a PDF version that you can print and distribute, click here.)

The issue. SB 327 and SB 148 are controversial bills recently passed by the Kansas Legislature. Their express purpose is to overrule the decision by KDHE Secretary Bremby to deny Sunflower Electric's plan to add a huge 1400 Megawatt greenhouse-gas belching addition to their existing 360 MW coal fired unit at Holcomb, Kansas. Supporters of these bills claim that “green” provisions in these bills offer a compromise with opponents of the Holcomb project.

Status of the bills. Governor Sebelius has vetoed both bills. The Senate, but not the House, overrode her veto of SB 327 on April 3rd. SB 148 is the same as SB 327 with a couple of new enticements. It is being held in reserve for another attempt at override.

King Coal behind the green curtain. The following provisions outline the real purpose of the bills:

  • No air quality rules may be stricter than federal law (prevents state level action on CO2 greenhouse gases before Congress acts);
  • Effectively reverses Bremby's Holcomb coal plant decision;
  • Limits KDHE authority to act in cases of “substantial endangerment” to health and environment to existing (not new) pollution sources, and only when harm is “imminent.”
  • Favors Sunflower Electric by allowing it to exempt itself from the jurisdiction of the Kansas Corporation Commission.

Green “Lite.” Holcomb supporters point to “green provisions” in the bills. While not without value, these steps are already generally in place, underway or insignificant in scope:

  • Energy conservation for public buildings - already being done, or else voluntary
  • Creates another commission to study energy - four other similar bodies already exist
  • Renewable Energy Standard: 10% of peak load by 2012%, 20% by 2020 - existing wind farm construction to reach first goal by 2010 anyway; Governor has received voluntary commitments from utilities for 20% by 2020.
  • Best available pollution control technology (BACT) - already required under federal Clean Air Act for traditional pollutants; will have no effect on Holcomb CO2 emissions.
  • Net metering – mild improvement over current law but not enough to provide a meaningful financial incentive to invest in a solar system; does not apply to wind turbines.
  • Tax credits for landlords - too small to make much difference
  • 80% capture of mercury emissions from new coal plants - already in the Holcomb draft permit
  • Explicitly allows electric utilities to recover their costs for energy efficiency and conservation programs from rate base – KCC has ruled they already have this authority.
  • SB 148 only: sets limits on sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from Holcomb – not as stringent as would likely be set under existing federal law (BACT).
  • SB 148 : Wind tariff allows ratepayer to pay extra for wind power - applies only if utility already owns or uses wind power; inappropriate because wind power is now cheaper than other options.
  • SB 148 : Electric utilities must develop energy efficiency and conservation programs - sets no goal, and most utilities in Kansas already doing it.
  • SB 148 : Utilities must report CO2 emissions - voluntary KDHE program already underway.
  • SB 148 : Requires KCC & KDHE to identify coal plants that emit CO2 at a rate more than 110% of the statewide average. This toothless provision replaced the original requirement for a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Conclusions.
These provisions do not even remotely compensate for the environmental damage from 11 million tons per year of greenhouse gases that would be emitted by the Holcomb project for 50 years!

By passing these bills, the Kansas legislature is signaling that the state is not receptive to advanced energy technologies. This action explains, at least in part, why the wind industry in Kansas has been unable to take off amidst one of the best resources in the world.

Kansas is again swimming against the tide, while many other states aggressively confront the challenge to our children's future posed by climate change. In light of the April '07 US Supreme Court Decision, that established CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, these bills may well be unconstitutional. They may serve primarily as an embarrassment to the citizens of the state.